KnownUnknown:


Christ fucking Jesus you’re a slowpoke!!! Even with the visual aid provided you still insist on your nonsensical “infinitely large number of slices”. You are beyond stupid.

No be small thing.... stupidity in higher dimensions.

TenQ:

Keep your words direct to the point!
When a dictionary defines a word in deliberate error to please a group such as the LGBTQ and Atheists, I refuse to follow such unless it agrees with common sense.

Well, a dictionary doesn’t do that. It Cannot deliberately take any action to please anyone. It’s an inanimate object. Dictionary compilers however, collect words and write definitions of them according to common usages.

As societies ineluctably drift and shift, the way words are used does as well.
You refuse to follow the drift and shift of the society in which you live? I doubt that. I suspect you only dig your heals in about that which you find demonstrates inclusiveness of folks you find objectionable.

Unless…”it agrees with common sense.” Whose sense is that? Just yours? How do you determine that your notion is common? How do you determine that your ideas are sensible? How many people does it take to be common?

And just what’s wrong with “pleasing” folks who are identified as lgbtq+ or atheist? The example you site is really about inclusion. Do you find inclusion of such folks somehow distasteful? Why must someone who considers their gender to be different than their birth sex be prevented from identifying as any gender they want? To please you? Hmmmm……

LordReed:


I dunno why you think this is special. First off, I was being speculative about the explanation for certain things we observe under certain conditions. For instance some people under psychedelic influence seem to be able to be prescient, could it be that the psychedelics are breaking that limitation to perceiving only 3 dimensions? I don't know but I am willing to speculate that it is as a way of explaining it.

Provide evidence of anyone under psychedelic influence being “prescient”.
Not to be facetious, but psychedelics are just drugs and I don’t see any reason when to musings if a person under the influence if psychedelic drugs should be taken serious. The musings of a heroin addict are not considered “prescient” after all so why the musings of some asshole tripping balls on DMT?

Dream17:

You are becoming a rather atrocious liar in this discussion. This is not how dictionaries are complied, although this ludicrous conspiracy theory of yours does rather explain a lot. The dictionary definition of atheism is what most people understand the word to mean. That is how dictionaries are compiled, and my own atheism is the lack of absence of belief in any deity or deities. Leaving that aside, you have yet to explain how arriving at atheism through choice and reason negates it being a lack or absence of belief in any deity, the definition of the word disbelief supports this as well, and is synonymous with atheism, you know what a synonym is right?

Emotional outburst!
You called me a Liar because I claim to disagree with some dictionary definition!
This is indeed the definition of lies.
LOL!

Dream17:

Words can and do change their meaning over time, dictionaries are compiled based on what most people consider a word to mean. They are not influenced by people who sulk that those words don't reflect their own subjective personal beliefs.

Does EVERYONE agree with the definition of Woman as
'an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. '

Your claim: (is like)
Anyone who doesn't agree with this stupid definition is a Liar!
Think please.

Dream17:

You have not answered me candidly at all. Instead, you have evaded the question with a dishonest straw man, implying that objective evidence exists but that I would not accept it, and without presenting anything.

Even though I still ANSWERED your Question within the same post, you needed to first argue that I didnt answer you candidly
I said:
Even though I've answered you several times: the question is silly!
It's like asking repeatedly: show me a square circle?

There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force the spiritual into the physical. Every evidence of the spiritual is SUBJECTIVE to the individual persons Experience!


Prior to this, I had answered this same question.
You said:

I didn't create anything. I asked for evidence of your claim.

My Response:

TenQ:

It doesn't dawn on you that there are two ways to make a proof.
The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.

There is not one single Christian who says that God is a Physical Being and there exist no physical proof of God because He is not subject to the natural/physical laws. Since there exist no physical proof, then the ball is in your hands

Of course, to you, I was presenting dishonest straw man, implying that objective evidence exists but that I would not accept it, and without presenting anything.

Dream17:

You are saying rubbish. We know objective evidence is possible, it exists for all manner of facts, you have simply used a false equivalence fallacy. Though ironically no objective evidence would be possible for something that did not exist outside of the imagination of humans who believed it to be real, which is food for thought.

I said objective evidence is not possible for spiritual things, you state the contrary (in red)

There are two ways to make a proof.
The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.
It is your turn to prove that no spirit dimension or deities exist (please don't forget to recognise that Christians say they are spirits)

Dream17:

That is always true for non-existent or imaginary things of course.

Let's test your rationale: "There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force unicorns or mermaids into the physical". Hmm, are you seeing the own goal yet? Your desire to keep the deity you imagine is real away from objective or critical scrutiny, has just placed in the category of non-existent things.

existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

Ooops!



Thank you. Well that wasn't hard was it? Why not just say you have NO objective evidence for any deity? Of course I cannot base belief on the unevidenced subjective opinion of others that they have experienced something. This would be irrational, as I should have to soon acknowledge contradictory claims. What's interesting is your obvious bias here, since you also wouldn't accept the identical claim from other people, if for example someone claimed they saw a mermaid or a unicorn. Or of course all the innumerable claims like yours that people make to have experienced other deities.



This is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (an argument from ignorance). I also have never made any such claim, nor is it an accident that my own rationale, unlike yours, stops short of making unevidenced claims. You sought the atheists here out to make your claim a deity demons and angels exist, the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you have admitted you have no objective evidence at all - only your own subjective opinion to have experienced something.



I made no claim that nothing created everything, your question is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy popular among religious apologists, in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. I don't know how the universe originated beyond the big bang, no one does. If you want learn the latest thinking on that I suggest you read what the best theoretical physicists have to say. However I do not believe any deity using explicable magic did it, as this is wholly unevidenced, and of course the claim has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

By the way, I know how to use the quote tags. I just prefer it this way because it's more convenient for me, thank you.

In your wisdom, every non objective evidence is a figment of imagination.
It just shows how myopic your reasoning is

Looks like you just read a book on Fallacies in Arguments and in every opportunity, whether true or not, you just want to show you've been to the library. Continue!
Of course, you didn't create anything: but you didn't realize that i just modified your quote and presented it to you.

TenQ:

Let's put your definition to test:
Animals lack or have absence of belief in ANY Deity! Does this make animas Atheists?

My claim:
It takes cognitive abilities required for abstract thinking for one to have a belief system such as atheism or theism.


There is no objective evidence that will satisfy you for Christians never defined their God as physical but a spirit.
For your Comprehension perhaps you should answer the question below
You are a 2D observer in your 2D space, what evidence do you think your senses can objectively fathom 3D objects in their 3D space?


Your question has been answered.

If as a 2D observer in your 2D space which is inside a 3D space you cannot objectively fathom things in 3D space, would that be a conclusive proof that both 3D objects and 3D space do not exist?

The bolded is 100% incorrect and spoken exactly as a Christian who has not read his own bible. Jesus was completely human and completely god. If not, there is no Christianity. God himself manifests multiple times in physical form in your own religious text. (Independent of his manifestation as Jesus.) All you have shown is that you are an ignorant representation of the faith you profess to believe in.

A001:

When scientists understand consciousness, energy, and waves deeply, we'll get concrete answers to these questions. The answers to these problems -- just like the solutions to all other challenges humanity faces -- lie in science, not religion.

In modern times, religion has no usefulness and place in the modern world.

Its still future tense: unfortunately, when you look at fractals, you'll change your mind. Why?
The more you know, the more there still exist to know.
This is the reality we find ourself in the universe

Science and Spirituality are not in competition.
Science deals with the physical observables, measurables and rules by which they operate with a view of blending them to serve us
Spirituality deals with the aspect of our mind, inner peace, beneficial behaviour in relation to non material forces of interest

A001:

Now to the questions you asked: Higher dimensions other than 3D exist. Anyone with basic knowledge of Physics would certainly understand the spatiotemporal nature of reality, i.e. the 4D nature of our world. Minkowski Space in Advanced Physics/Math treats this subject in detail.

The problem here isn't whether higher dimensions of reality exist or not. The issue lies in the limited perception of humans.

Due to the limitations of the brain and our senses, humans can only grasp and make sense of things in 3D and 4D. We can travel forward and backward spatially in 3D (in space) but can't move forward and backward temporally (in time).

So, 4D dimensions exist without any doubt.

I agree with you here except that our senses cannot graps 4D

A001:

Higher dimensions also exist. Even though the current scientific understanding of these dimensions is limited, we'd understand them deeply in the future. Already, significant progress has been made in higher-dimensional mathematics such as quaternions (extending the complex numbers), octonions (extending quaternions), and sedenions (extending octonions).

As a physicist, I regard reality as existing in multiple bases and frequencies, echoing the notion of philosophers like Hypatia and Plato. In the spaces around you (just like the rest of us), there are multiple realms, with each existing independently of the other and separated by a barrier.

When the consciousness of a person is altered (such as during sleep paralysis, deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams and other hypnagogic phases/states, or death), they can experience other realms of existence.

Reality can be scaled at multiple levels or dimensions. We've microscopic and macroscopic scales (as shown in the attached photo below). I prefer to call the microscopic and macroscopic scales the outer universe, which is the physical world. Below the microscopic levels, or specifically below the Planck scale (within 10^-35m orders of magnitude), are nonmaterial realms, which are purely fields of consciousness and energy.

That's the inner universe or inner worlds. These are worlds of thoughts, ideas, feelings, fears, and other emotions.

It is this inner universe you religious people call the spiritual realm.

Consciousness and energy is all that exists -- everything else is a product of the brain's interpretations.

You said:
When the consciousness of a person is altered (such as during sleep paralysis, deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams and other hypnagogic phases/states, or death), they can experience other realms of existence.

Does this mean that you are not an atheist?

A001:

The answer lies in Mathematics and broadening of scope. Whether higher dimensions exist or not is a problem of perception.

I asked: What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?

You've not given an answer because the keyword was EXPERIMENT: deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams and other hypnagogic phases/states for now are all SUBJECTIVE in nature. Experiments must be Objective and Repeatable.

A001:

Your question is poorly framed. There's nothing like having perfect scientific knowledge in science. No scientific knowledge is perfect or absolute.

The objective is to discuss a Philosophical and not Scientific question. Using the 1D, 2D and 3D thougth experiment, the question is for instnce: if we are observsers in the 2D space and we know everything about our space, would this knowledge help us to comprehend the 3D space.

Thus the Question:
What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?

A001:

Yes. Humans in lower dimensions interact with higher dimensions during lucid dreams, deep meditations, NDEs, and astral travels.

Religious texts, philosophies such as Ifa (in Yoruba), languages, and some technological inventions are some products of these interactions.

When a person's consciousness is altered either naturally via lucid dreams and meditations or artificially via psychoactive substances such as entheogens and psychedelics, they can interact with higher dimensions.

The science underlying this is resonance, superposition, and coherence (I might shed more light on this later), and some humans have the gift of seeing into higher dimensions naturally. Ifa, one of the ancestors of Yorubas, was one of such people.

I think you have answered this question from a non scientific point of view.
From spiritual point of view the answer is YES
BUT
from non spiritual point of view, is the answer also a YES?

KnownUnknown:


Provide evidence of anyone under psychedelic influence being “prescient”.
Not to be facetious, but psychedelics are just drugs and I don’t see any reason when to musings if a person under the influence if psychedelic drugs should be taken serious. The musings of a heroin addict are not considered “prescient” after all so why the musings of some asshole tripping balls on DMT?

I wrote "seem to be prescient", having increased probability of predictions coming to be seems to be prescient. I am not saying they've acquired magical powers nor am I saying it is the case for everyone who uses psychedelics.

See this article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/19/brain-scans-reveal-mind-opening-response-to-psychedelic-drug-trip-lsd-ketamine-psilocybin

See this too: https://www.scribd.com/audiobook/592294888/DMT-and-the-Soul-of-Prophecy-A-New-Science-of-Spiritual-Revelation-in-the-Hebrew-Bible

TenQ:


1. Being emotional doesn't help you out one bit. I asked you a basic question



What is your response?


2. You said:


It doesn't dawn on you that there are two ways to make a proof.

The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.

There is not one single Christian who says that God is a Physical Being and there exist no physical proof of God because He is not subject to the natural/physical laws. Since there exist no physical proof, then the ball is in your hands

I didn't create anything, therefore I ask you for evidence of your claim that NOTHING created everything?

3. Since you aren't willing to process this, let me help you out.

A. We cannot BELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
E.g We know that the addition of TWO Oranges with THREE Oranges will give us a total of FIVE Oranges. Since we know this we can't believe the answer is 5.


B. We cannot DISBELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
E.g We know that the addition of TWO Oranges with THREE Oranges will give us a total of FIVE Oranges. Since we know this we can't disbelieve the answer is 5.


One of the definition by Webster Dictionary of the word Belief is
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
//belief in the validity of scientific statements


We Choose/Take/Hold a position of BELIEF when whenever have a REASONABLE but INCOMPLETE knowledge of a position or thing to hold a position of HIGH or LOW Probability

E.g. I do believe it will rain heavily tonight! Is a statement I made because I looked at the sky, saw the thick cloud during the rainy season and thought that it is reasonable based on available evidence that rain should fall.
That is HIGH probability of it Raining
OR
E.g. I do NOT believe it will rain heavily tonight! Is a statement I made because I looked at the sky, saw the no cloud during the dry season and thought that it is reasonable based on available evidence that rain shouldn't fall.
That is LOW probability of it Raining


Except you want to say that
Belief and Disbelief are NOT opposite in meaning.


By the definition of Belief:
It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.



What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.

Even Animals can form a Belief!

@underlined, So, let me see if I understand you correctly….no Xtians would say their god IS a physical being, but it WAS a physical being in the past, correct? If the latter is the case, was that god still not subject to natural/physical laws? All of them? Just some of them? None of them? Only occasionally? If their god did indeed exist in the physical world, can you provide proof for that? Don’t Xtians also think their god currently manipulates the physical world? How is that possible if their god exists outside of it? If their god does manipulate the physical world, shouldn’t there be some way to prove that?

It’s just so confusing! I hope you can help with these questions.

TenQ:

Emotional outburst!
You called me a Liar because I claim to disagree with some dictionary definition!
This is indeed the definition of lies.
LOL!



Does EVERYONE agree with the definition of Woman as
'an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. '

Your claim: (is like)
Anyone who doesn't agree with this stupid definition is a Liar!
Think please.


Even though I still ANSWERED your Question within the same post, you needed to first argue that I didnt answer you candidly
I said:
Even though I've answered you several times: the question is silly!
It's like asking repeatedly: show me a square circle?

There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force the spiritual into the physical. Every evidence of the spiritual is SUBJECTIVE to the individual persons Experience!


Prior to this, I had answered this same question.
You said:


My Response:


Of course, to you, I was presenting dishonest straw man, implying that objective evidence exists but that I would not accept it, and without presenting anything.


I said objective evidence is not possible for spiritual things, you state the contrary (in red)

There are two ways to make a proof.
The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.
It is your turn to prove that no spirit dimension or deities exist (please don't forget to recognise that Christians say they are spirits)



In your wisdom, every non objective evidence is a figment of imagination.
It just shows how myopic your reasoning is

Looks like you just read a book on Fallacies in Arguments and in every opportunity, whether true or not, you just want to show you've been to the library. Continue!
Of course, you didn't create anything: but you didn't realize that i just modified your quote and presented it to you.

@underlined, LOL, You have confused the social construct of gender with biology.
This would be a different thread though./ No need to reply, just know there is debate on the subject of gender identity.

TenQ, since there is no physical proof for God, we can rule out prayer, miracles, prophecies, personal experience, and other physical manifestations of your so-called God thing. Without physical evidence for your god claim, your god and non-existence are identical. Thank you for playing, do not pass go, and do not collect the prize money. All you have done is support the atheist position,.

JustAnotherGuy:
TenQ, since there is no physical proof for God, we can rule out prayer, miracles, prophecies, personal experience, and other physical manifestations of your so-called God thing. Without physical evidence for your god claim, your god and non-existence are identical. Thank you for playing, do not pass go, and do not collect the prize money. All you have done is support the atheist position,.

neither is there a universe

LordReed:

Why do you think it is necessary?

A thought experiment makes sense only when followed logically from its foundation (well structured) and from known to unknown.
When the foundation is skipped, we arrive at a faulty projection into the unknown.

LordReed:

Once again that was not AudioMonkey's point. His point, if I may be bold enough to speak to it, is our perception is limited to 3 dimensions even though we are aware of the extra dimensions. We can try to visualise what those extra dimensions would mean/look like but the result will be imperfect because of our limitation. He is not saying only 3 dimensions exist and you would do well to stop misinterpreting what he said and ask questions if you don't understand it.

Well structured thought experiments provide sufficient information going in, in other to produce helpful conclusions. Eg Schrodinger's cat. We are not going to get anything useful if we start with fictions.

You may rephrase what you think AudioMonkey is saying but check our argument: It wasn't this. He was of the point that 1D, 2D and 4D etc do not exist in reality.

Why bother with a philosophical Question of the Philosophy of Spatial Dimension and the spiritual realm when the answer or conclusion is that is that NOTHING can exist outside the 3D space!

AudioMonkey:

...
Again I say, there's nothing like 1D/2D objects just as you were not able to give an example of one, nor is there any 4D object, everything in real life exist as 3D, xyz object, nothing else below or above this.
0D/1D/2D are just classifications of perception and not classification of real-life objects. While dots, lines, shapes, pixels are theoretical objects on paper for theoretical purposes, analysis and computation. In reality they don't exist outside display on paper or other medium.
A tiny line in reality is a full 3D object, ball point is full 3D object, a rectangular plane is a full 3D object with tangible area but infinitesimal height.
For any object to exist as an object in space, it must posses all three xyz space values.
In space it's just 3D, three x, y, z. Or can you mention anything else outside this? No.
All objects exists and ends as 3D space objects. Nothing short or more of this.
That is why 4D is not a space quantity, rather it's another entirely different dimension and that is likely time.
A 3D space object is just a slice of space-time and maybe space-time is also a slice of something higher and so is our perception which can only view 3D objects per a particular time.
Space-time 4D is not a problem of detection because we know it is time, rather it's a problem of perception - our inability to view an objects in different times at once, we can only view a slice of space-time per time.
Motion blur images are theoretical depiction of space-time, 3d objects and it's motion in different times captured as a single perception. More like capturing space-time.
In real life, there might be creatures or organisms that may be able to perceive in 4D.

1D/2D object doesn't exist, same as 4D object.
Space starts and ends in 3D.
4D is space-time and 3D is a slice of it.
space - time may be a slice of something else.
It may go on and on like that.

His conclusion if I may put it in another word:
Only 3D objects in 3D space exist, there's no need projecting into 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th ,6th dimensions.


This is another level of argument for anyone interested.

LordReed:

I dunno why you think this is special. First off, I was being speculative about the explanation for certain things we observe under certain conditions. For instance some people under psychedelic influence seem to be able to be prescient, could it be that the psychedelics are breaking that limitation to perceiving only 3 dimensions? I don't know but I am willing to speculate that it is as a way of explaining it. Next, of course there are aspects of our reality our senses cannot perceive. This is why we develop tools to get at those. These are not magical things so I see no reason to think that extra dimensions are any different.

My Questions were all based on your claims which were surprising to me and thus needed clarifications

You said:
Also we can consider that there are humans who for some reason or other are actually able to occassionally get a glimpse of the extra dimensions.
My Question:
Can you please give one or two examples where this has/can occurred?

You said:
Again this doesn't imply anything magical or spiritual, all that may be happening is their consciousness has expanded beyond our usual limited perception of the 3 dimensions we are used to perceiving.
My Question:
What nomenclature do you have for this reality which you say defies our limited perception of 3D?

I am not attacking you my friend , I just want to understand your view
You also said:
I would suggest that these beings will not be invisible rather they would be very much a part of this universe we see and perceive but would be possibly very alien to us physiologically and psychologically since their entire existence would be based on perceptions much more broader than ours.

I know you probably are not speaking as an atheist here but as a philosopher but truly, I want to understand these.
Thanks

JustAnotherGuy:
TenQ, since there is no physical proof for God, we can rule out prayer, miracles, prophecies, personal experience, and other physical manifestations of your so-called God thing. Without physical evidence for your god claim, your god and non-existence are identical. Thank you for playing, do not pass go, and do not collect the prize money. All you have done is support the atheist position,.

If you had just followed the logic rather than repeat a rhetoric:

If you are a 2D observer in a 2D space within the earth, would you be able to prove that 3D objects exist all around you?

I waiting for your answer!

JustAnotherGuy:

@underlined, LOL, You have confused the social construct of gender with biology.
This would be a different thread though./ No need to reply, just know there is debate on the subject of gender identity.

1. Can you show me how to identify male dogs from among female dogs?
2. If your biology is correct with dogs, why should it be wrong with humans?
3. When archaeologists see the skeletons of an adult male, would it be defined male or female by social construct or through biology?
4. Does majority of people on the earth define gender by biology or by social construct?
5. Can I give myself the social construct of a 6 year old white American at the American Embassy even though my parents (biology) are black Nigerians?

If you are TRUTHFUL, answer these 5 questions!

If you ask me, his madness is getting to the level of insanity!

TenQ:

You said:
When the consciousness of a person is altered (such as during sleep paralysis, deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams and other hypnagogic phases/states, or death), they can experience other realms of existence.
Does this mean that you are not an atheist?

No. I never told you I was one. I am an agnostic.

TenQ:

I asked: What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?

You've not given an answer because the keyword was EXPERIMENT: deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams and other hypnagogic phases/states for now are all SUBJECTIVE in nature. Experiments must be Objective and Repeatable.

Where I did list deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams, and other hypnagogic phases/states as experiments in the comment you quoted? What you're asking is what scientists call gedanken or thought experiments, and I stated the answer lies in Mathematics. Whether it's 2D or 3D, mathematics will give you the best proof. You should know this domain lies within mathematics.

I can design a simple thought experiment to answer your question, but I'll still fall back to mathematics to prove my hypothesis. If the mathematics isn't well developed, you can't prove the existence of higher dimensions.

TenQ:

The objective is to discuss a Philosophical and not Scientific question. Using the 1D, 2D and 3D thougth experiment, the question is for instnce: if we are observsers in the 2D space and we know everything about our space, would this knowledge help us to comprehend the 3D space.

Thus the Question:
What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?

It all boils down to mathematics as explained above.

TenQ:

I think you have answered this question from a non scientific point of view.
From spiritual point of view the answer is YES
BUT
from non spiritual point of view, is the answer also a YES?

My answer has a theoretical basis in Physics and Mathematics. Nothing spiritual or supernatural at all. It all boils down to the principle of superposition of waves.

I can give a simplified definition of this based on superposition, resonance, and coherence. But I'll be revealing key parts of a book and a paper I'm working on currently on the subject. That's not meant for Nairaland conversation.

These scientific studies explain the issue deeply:

--"Consciousness in the Universe is Tuned by a Musical Master Code: A Hydrodynamic Superfluid Quantum Space Guides a Conformal Mental Attribute of Reality. The Hard Problem in Consciousness Studies Revisited" by Dirk K. F. Meijer, Igor Jerman, Alexey V. Melkikh and Valeriy I. Sbitnev.
--"Universal Consciousness: Collective Evidence on the Basis of Current Physics and Philosophy of Mind. Part 1" by Dirk K.F. Meijer

They're available for free online.

LordReed:

Except in this case I have never seen this son, not even a picture. I was only told I have a son that looks like me. Maybe some people can live with that not knowing if the son actually exists and is actually theirs, I can't.

Good judgment LordReed.
Remember you also agreed earlier that it may not be hard to deduce God.
So, if we use intuition and deduction on important matters of our lives like accepting paternity without any DNA fact/evidence, why suddenly do some people make this method invalid when it comes to God?
I'll play along and assume they're more skeptical than the rest of us, the reason they want evidence to reinforce their deduction. If that is the case, yet we shouldn't have those who spend their lives attacking the concept of God, trying hard to prove he doesn't exist.
No matter how skeptical you're, after all your positive deductions by intuition, while you await perhaps DNA evidence/fact to solidify it's your son, you don't kick him and attack him. If as a malevolent person, you can't love him yet, worst is you maintain a neutral stand towards him. But if you kick him out and spend all the time attacking him, isn't that exposing the truth is that you really don't want him, only using the evidence thing as an excuse?
Some don't want God nor want him to exist, the reason they exist to attack and debunk him, while using whatever they mean by 'evidence' as an excuse to mask their real intention.
That is what it is.

JustAnotherGuy:

@underlined, So, let me see if I understand you correctly….no Xtians would say their god IS a physical being, but it WAS a physical being in the past, correct? If the latter is the case, was that god still not subject to natural/physical laws? All of them? Just some of them? None of them? Only occasionally? If their god did indeed exist in the physical world, can you provide proof for that? Don’t Xtians also think their god currently manipulates the physical world? How is that possible if their god exists outside of it? If their god does manipulate the physical world, shouldn’t there be some way to prove that?

It’s just so confusing! I hope you can help with these questions.

First read up the first page, then come back an represent your questions as I will gladly answer them.
The topic is about the philosophy of spatial dimensions and the spiritual: its not a debate about God!

JustAnotherGuy:

The bolded is 100% incorrect and spoken exactly as a Christian who has not read his own bible. Jesus was completely human and completely god. If not, there is no Christianity. God himself manifests multiple times in physical form in your own religious text. (Independent of his manifestation as Jesus.) All you have shown is that you are an ignorant representation of the faith you profess to believe in.

Your ignorance need no response!

AudioMonkey:


Stop putting words in my mouth. You misunderstand the concepts and again misunderstood the language employed in explaining the concepts. Who does that?
For the 1000th time, I never ever said only 3D is real. All the dimensions are real.
0D (I can't say, perhaps this dimension is the "nothing" from which God created every other thing)
1D (maybe forces, I don't care to know RN)
2D (maybe motion, I don't GAF what it is RN)
3D (dimension for physical objects like I've been saying)
4D (likely space - time dimension, like I said previously) etc
Now, what I said is, as far as physical objects are concerned, they exist in the 3D. Nothing like 4D tesseract or 2D shape objects or 1D line. Every real life object is a full-fledged 3D object no matter how microscopic or how much you slice it or merge them, you will get a 3D object as a final result always.
Nonetheless, given the free world we live in, where people can say things the way they want it said, people still choose to relate the terms 0D/1D/2D/4D to physical objects.
If that is the case, then we can have 0D/1D/2D/4D "view/perception" of a physical 3D object or 0D/1D/2D/4D "representation" of a physical object on paper for various purposes but in real life, physical objects exist and remain as 3D objects.
I am calling on LordReed as my witness as I correct you and explain things to you for the 1000th time.

Now before I leave, guess what TenQ, I engaged Chatgpt, asking the same 2D shape question. At first, nigga mentioned flat shapes with big area and "tiny thickness". Then I asked him, if these "2D" flat shapes still managed to necessarily possess thickness, though tiny, why did he call them 2D? To my surprise, it immediately apologized and admitted I was right.
That has got me wondering how on earth, an ordinary AI still in early stages of development go come get sense pass you in this world.
Initially when I came into the thread, I was excited but now, you disappoint me, son.

I quoted you extensively in replying to LordReed.

And let me quote you here again , make your deductions

AudioMonkey:

...
Again I say, there's nothing like 1D/2D objects just as you were not able to give an example of one, nor is there any 4D object, everything in real life exist as 3D, xyz object, nothing else below or above this.
0D/1D/2D are just classifications of perception and not classification of real-life objects. While dots, lines, shapes, pixels are theoretical objects on paper for theoretical purposes, analysis and computation. In reality they don't exist outside display on paper or other medium.
A tiny line in reality is a full 3D object, ball point is full 3D object, a rectangular plane is a full 3D object with tangible area but infinitesimal height.
For any object to exist as an object in space, it must posses all three xyz space values.
In space it's just 3D, three x, y, z. Or can you mention anything else outside this? No.
All objects exists and ends as 3D space objects. Nothing short or more of this.
That is why 4D is not a space quantity, rather it's another entirely different dimension and that is likely time.
A 3D space object is just a slice of space-time and maybe space-time is also a slice of something higher and so is our perception which can only view 3D objects per a particular time.
Space-time 4D is not a problem of detection because we know it is time, rather it's a problem of perception - our inability to view an objects in different times at once, we can only view a slice of space-time per time.
Motion blur images are theoretical depiction of space-time, 3d objects and it's motion in different times captured as a single perception. More like capturing space-time.
In real life, there might be creatures or organisms that may be able to perceive in 4D.

1D/2D object doesn't exist, same as 4D object.
Space starts and ends in 3D.
4D is space-time and 3D is a slice of it.
space - time may be a slice of something else.
It may go on and on like that.

A001:

No. I never told you I was one. I am an agnostic.

All agnostics are first atheists: the distinction is in the degree of certainty as agnostics will say
"we don't have sufficient information/we don't know for sure"
It wasn't still an accusation: I was wondering that you said:

When the consciousness of a person is altered (such as during sleep paralysis, deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams and other hypnagogic phases/states, or death), they can experience other realms of existence.

Most Atheists will discard the above as other realms of existence!

A001:

Where I did list deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams, and other hypnagogic phases/states as experiments in the comment you quoted? What you're asking is what scientists call gedanken or thought experiments, and I stated the answer lies in Mathematics. Whether it's 2D or 3D, mathematics will give you the best proof. You should know this domain lies within mathematics.

I can design a simple thought experiment to answer your question, but I'll still fall back to mathematics to prove my hypothesis. If the mathematics isn't well developed, you can't prove the existence of higher dimensions.

You did NOT say deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams, and other hypnagogic phases/states are experiments
I used them as examples of observables
I said:
You've not given an answer because the keyword was EXPERIMENT: deep meditation, NDE/OOBE, lucid dreams and other hypnagogic phases/states for now are all SUBJECTIVE in nature. Experiments must be Objective and Repeatable.

Check the colon!
I was simply asking you for EXPERIMENTS

A001:

It all boils down to mathematics as explained above.

I was asking for Experiments not mathematics

A001:

My answer has a theoretical basis in Physics and Mathematics. Nothing spiritual or supernatural at all. It all boils down to the principle of superposition of waves.

I can give a simplified definition of this based on superposition, resonance, and coherence. But I'll be revealing key parts of a book and a paper I'm working on currently on the subject. That's not meant for Nairaland conversation.

These scientific studies explain the issue deeply:

--"Consciousness in the Universe is Tuned by a Musical Master Code: A Hydrodynamic Superfluid Quantum Space Guides a Conformal Mental Attribute of Reality. The Hard Problem in Consciousness Studies Revisited" by Dirk K. F. Meijer, Igor Jerman, Alexey V. Melkikh and Valeriy I. Sbitnev.
--"Universal Consciousness: Collective Evidence on the Basis of Current Physics and Philosophy of Mind. Part 1" by Dirk K.F. Meijer

They're available for free online.

The Question was:
We know that a person in a higher dimension can interact with those in the lower dimensions: is the converse possible?

Your response was a YES to the question and you followed up with
Yes. Humans in lower dimensions interact with higher dimensions during lucid dreams, deep meditations, NDEs, and astral travels.
Religious texts, philosophies such as Ifa (in Yoruba), languages, and some technological inventions are some products of these interactions.
When a person's consciousness is altered either naturally via lucid dreams and meditations or artificially via psychoactive substances such as entheogens and psychedelics, they can interact with higher dimensions.

Since you mentioned deep meditations, NDEs and astra travels (fields normally claimed by spiritual persons)

I think you habve clarified it by saying
Nothing spiritual or supernatural at all. It all boils down to the principle of superposition of waves.

TenQ:

All agnostics are first atheists

Says who? Some atheists, due to one reason or the other, become agnostics later on, and some agnostics embrace atheism later as well. As for me, I've never been an atheist since leaving religion years ago and will never be one.

I don't expect the issue of whether God or not to be resolved within the next 50-60 years, so most likely, I'll remain an agnostic for life.

A001:

Says who? Some atheists, due to one reason or the other, become agnostics later on, and some agnostics embrace atheism later as well. As for me, I've never been an atheist since leaving religion years ago and will never be one.

I don't expect the issue of whether God or not to be resolved within the next 50-60 years, so most likely, I'll remain an agnostic for life.

If I understand you correctly,
You take the distinction between Atheists and Agnostics very seriously: in this case you are NOT an atheist, you are Agnostic.

If I will stretch it a little more:
As an agnostic, you believe in higher dimensions but you don't attribute anything spiritual to them, they are just phenomenon that we do not have physical comprehension for yet. I hope I am correct?

TenQ:

A thought experiment makes sense only when followed logically from its foundation (well structured) and from known to unknown.
When the foundation is skipped, we arrive at a faulty projection into the unknown.

Exactly.

You may rephrase what you think AudioMonkey is saying but check our argument: It wasn't this. He was of the point that 1D, 2D and 4D etc do not exist in reality.

Why bother with a philosophical Question of the Philosophy of Spatial Dimension and the spiritual realm when the answer or conclusion is that is that NOTHING can exist outside the 3D space!

I have rephrased it for you twice now.

His conclusion if I may put it in another word:
Only 3D objects in 3D space exist, there's no need projecting into 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th ,6th dimensions.


This is another level of argument for anyone interested.

You are not understanding what he meant. Stop getting stuck on the objects and focus on the perception, that is the key to understanding what he wrote.

My Questions were all based on your claims which were surprising to me and thus needed clarifications

You said:
Also we can consider that there are humans who for some reason or other are actually able to occassionally get a glimpse of the extra dimensions.
My Question:
Can you please give one or two examples where this has/can occurred?

I wasn't making a claim. I said it is possible a glimpse into extra dimensions is an explanation for certain phenomenon. I am speculating not making a claim.

You said:
Again this doesn't imply anything magical or spiritual, all that may be happening is their consciousness has expanded beyond our usual limited perception of the 3 dimensions we are used to perceiving.
My Question:
What nomenclature do you have for this reality which you say defies our limited perception of 3D?

Again this is speculation. we have no way currently of knowing if anybody can perceive in themselves the extra dimension. I seriously hope you know what speculation means.

I am not attacking you my friend , I just want to understand your view
You also said:
I would suggest that these beings will not be invisible rather they would be very much a part of this universe we see and perceive but would be possibly very alien to us physiologically and psychologically since their entire existence would be based on perceptions much more broader than ours.

I know you probably are not speaking as an atheist here but as a philosopher but truly, I want to understand these.
Thanks

Finally and again, I am SPECULATING. IF (and that is a very gigantic IF) beings exist that can natively see extra dimensions then they will certainly be different from us humans. It is our bodily structure that has determined how we perceive the universe around us thus it is not hard to extrapolate that beings capable of perceiving extra dimensions will have a body type that dictates such an outcome.

AudioMonkey:


Good judgment LordReed.
Remember you also agreed earlier that it may not be hard to deduce God.
So, if we use intuition and deduction on important matters of our lives like accepting paternity without any DNA fact/evidence, why suddenly do some people make this method invalid when it comes to God?
I'll play along and assume they're more skeptical than the rest of us, the reason they want evidence to reinforce their deduction. If that is the case, yet we shouldn't have those who spend their lives attacking the concept of God, trying hard to prove he doesn't exist.
No matter how skeptical you're, after all your positive deductions by intuition, while you await perhaps DNA evidence/fact to solidify it's your son, you don't kick him and attack him. If as a malevolent person, you can't love him yet, worst is you maintain a neutral stand towards him. But if you kick him out and spend all the time attacking him, isn't that exposing the truth is that you really don't want him, only using the evidence thing as an excuse?
Some don't want God nor want him to exist, the reason they exist to attack and debunk him, while using whatever they mean by 'evidence' as an excuse to mask their real intention.
That is what it is.

Can you give an example of how you think people are attacking god(s)?

LordReed:


Exactly.




I have rephrased it for you twice now.




You are not understanding what he meant. Stop getting stuck on the objects and focus on the perception, that is the key to understanding what he wrote.






I wasn't making a claim. I said it is possible a glimpse into extra dimensions is an explanation for certain phenomenon. I am speculating not making a claim.



Again this is speculation. we have no way currently of knowing if anybody can perceive in themselves the extra dimension. I seriously hope you know what speculation means.



Finally and again, I am SPECULATING. IF (and that is a very gigantic IF) beings exist that can natively see extra dimensions then they will certainly be different from us humans. It is our bodily structure that has determined how we perceive the universe around us thus it is not hard to extrapolate that beings capable of perceiving extra dimensions will have a body type that dictates such an outcome.

I wont push this but this is the real Agnostic LordReed without his Atheistic Armour.

Have a good night rest

AudioMonkey:


Good judgment LordReed.
Remember you also agreed earlier that it may not be hard to deduce God.
So, if we use intuition and deduction on important matters of our lives like accepting paternity without any DNA fact/evidence, why suddenly do some people make this method invalid when it comes to God?
I'll play along and assume they're more skeptical than the rest of us, the reason they want evidence to reinforce their deduction. If that is the case, yet we shouldn't have those who spend their lives attacking the concept of God, trying hard to prove he doesn't exist.
No matter how skeptical you're, after all your positive deductions by intuition, while you await perhaps DNA evidence/fact to solidify it's your son, you don't kick him and attack him. If as a malevolent person, you can't love him yet, worst is you maintain a neutral stand towards him. But if you kick him out and spend all the time attacking him, isn't that exposing the truth is that you really don't want him, only using the evidence thing as an excuse?
Some don't want God nor want him to exist, the reason they exist to attack and debunk him, while using whatever they mean by 'evidence' as an excuse to mask their real intention.
That is what it is.

You have spoken some wisdom here!

Cheers

TenQ:

I wont push this but this is the real Agnostic LordReed without his Atheistic Armour.

Have a good night rest

LoLz! I am an agnostic atheist, my stance on the matter shouldn't be surprising.

LordReed:


LoLz! I am an agnostic atheist, my stance on the matter shouldn't be surprising.

I wont push this but this is the real Agnostic LordReed without his Atheistic Armour.
Im not saying anything different

TenQ:

If you had just followed the logic rather than repeat a rhetoric:

If you are a 2D observer in a 2D space within the earth, would you be able to prove that 3D objects exist all around you?

I waiting for your answer!

Demonstrate the existence of dimensions outside the imaginings of mathematics.

JustAnotherGuy:

Demonstrate the existence of dimensions outside the imaginings of mathematics.

Since you can't respond to questions intelligently, your are hereby ignored until you exhibit some maturity.

Good night!

TenQ:

If I understand you correctly,
You take the distinction between Atheists and Agnostics very seriously: in this case you are NOT an atheist, you are Agnostic.

If I will stretch it a little more:
As an agnostic, you believe in higher dimensions but you don't attribute anything spiritual to them, they are just phenomenon that we do not have physical comprehension for yet. I hope I am correct?

I don't do beliefs. But I posit higher dimensions exist beyond the grasp of the average human. And yes, you can call them phenomena.

As the saying goes: "What we know is a drop; what we don't know is an ocean" — Isaac Newton